IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rohc] RE: non-default capabilities

"Hans Hannu (EPL)" <Hans.Hannu@epl.ericsson.se> Tue, 19 February 2002 15:28 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23930 for <rohc-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:28:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA12006; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:24:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA09594 for <rohc@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:46:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from albatross.wise.edt.ericsson.se (albatross-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se [193.180.251.36]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21355 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:46:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from esealnt461 (esealnt461.al.sw.ericsson.se [153.88.251.61]) by albatross.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.12.1/8.12.1/WIREfire-1.4) with SMTP id g1JEjrhM025592 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:45:53 +0100 (MET)
Received: FROM esealnt400.al.sw.ericsson.se BY esealnt461 ; Tue Feb 19 15:45:42 2002 +0100
Received: by esealnt400 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <Z1HYR8TS>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:45:41 +0100
Message-ID: <A943FD84BD9ED41193460008C791805003E9A272@ESEALNT419.al.sw.ericsson.se>
From: "Hans Hannu (EPL)" <Hans.Hannu@epl.ericsson.se>
To: "'Lawrence Conroy'" <lwc@roke.co.uk>
Cc: rohc@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:44:42 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: [rohc] RE: non-default capabilities
Sender: rohc-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: rohc-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org

Hi,

> Having had a (very) quick look at the SigComp draft, I don't see how 
> the capabilities
> for non-default algorithms are supported - these were discussed on 
> the list recently,
> but how does an end point report the algorithms it supports (i.e. the 
> states it has
> available) to its peer (remote) entity?

I think this can be done by using the Requested feedback format as described in draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-extended-01.txt.

I have some more issues on how the two drafts (sigcomp and sigcomp-extended) with the mechanisms may interact, e.g. how to perform what is described above. I'll collect those and put them into a separate mail.

BR
/Hans H


_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email